CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar

55 ITR 630Supreme Court of India1965#11707 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 237Section 249
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80abretention moneycomputer assisted scrutiny selectionsection 14a(1)clarificatory amendmentsection 253(3)section 80ia(4)section 139(5)section 80cextension of limitationsection 129section 80ic

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 454/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…e stage at which the earlier AO had left. The court emphasized that the issuance of a second notice under Section 148 was not required by law and would result in the dropping of the first notice, leading to time barring issues. CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar (1965) 55 ITR 630 (SC): The Supreme Court held that the successor AO is entitled to continue the proceedings from the stage left by the predecessor. The court emphasized that the assessee's right to demand a rehearing or reopening of proceedings provides a safeguard against any potential prejudice due to the change of incumbent. On the above discussion it can be ea…

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 453/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…e stage at which the earlier AO had left. The court emphasized that the issuance of a second notice under Section 148 was not required by law and would result in the dropping of the first notice, leading to time barring issues. CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar (1965) 55 ITR 630 (SC): The Supreme Court held that the successor AO is entitled to continue the proceedings from the stage left by the predecessor. The court emphasized that the assessee's right to demand a rehearing or reopening of proceedings provides a safeguard against any potential prejudice due to the change of incumbent. On the above discussion it can be ea…

M/S. Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ACIT-I, Lucknow

In the result, appeals vide I

ITA 357/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…stage at which the earlier AO had left. The court emphasized that the issuance of a second notice under Section 148 was not required by law and would result in the dropping of the first notice, leading to time barring issues. CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar (1965) 55 ITR 630 (SC): The Supreme Court held that the successor AO is entitled to continue the proceedings from the stage left by the predecessor. The court emphasized that the assessee's right to demand a rehearing or reopening of proceedings provides a safeguard against any potential prejudice due to the change of incumbent. On the above discussion it can be e…

Adonis Marketing (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1769/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…. ACIT (no. 2) [2004] 266 ITR 664 (All) has observed as under: “It is well settled that notice under section 148 cannot be issued when assessment proceedings are pending vide CIT v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas [1959] 36 ITR 569 (SC), CIT v. S.RamanChettiar [19 65] 55 ITR 630 (SC), N.NaganathaIyer v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 647 (Mad.), Ram Bilas Kedar Nath v. ITO [1963] 47 ITR 586 (All.), Dr. Onkar Dutta Sharma v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 359 (All.), Sool Chand RamSewak v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 466 (All.), S.P.Kochhar v. ITO [1 984] 145 ITR 2551 (All.) Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 3812 (SC)…

ITO, WD.9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

…ent proceedings became pending before the Assessing Officer. 13. It is well settled that notice under section 148 cannot be issued when assessment proceedings are pending vide CIT v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas [1959] 36 ITR 569 (SC), CIT v. S.RamanChettiar [ 1965] 55 ITR 630 (SC), N.NaganathaIyer v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 647 (Mad.), Ram Bilas Kedar Nath v. ITO [1963] 47 ITR 586 (All.), Dr. Onkar Dutta Sharma v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 359 (All.), Sool Chand Ram Sewak v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 466 (All.), S.P.Kochhar v. ITO [19 84] 145 ITR 2551 (All.) Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 3812 (S…

Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions Kolkata vs. M/S Tata Medical Centre Trust

Appeal stands dismissed and the connected

ITAT/186/2023HC Calcutta26 Sept 2023

Bench: The Assessing Officer In The Course Of The Proceedings Subsequent To The Order Passed Under Section 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19Th April, 2023. 2. During The Pendency Of The Proceedings The Assessment Has Been Completed & The Assessment Order Has Been Passed On 13.03.2025 Which Is Sought To Be Brought

For Appellant: Mr. Pranit Bag, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 154

…as the decisions which have been referred to by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant/assessee which is suffice to note the earliest of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –versus- S. Raman Chettiar, reported at [1965] 55 ITR 630 (SC) which decision has been followed in the case of Indian Tubes Co. Ltd. and also noted in EIT Services India (P.) Ltd. In the said case the decision was to the effect that when a notice under Section 148 of the Act is issued, the original assessment proceedings are entirely opened up or left open and the finality which had occurred in the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2400/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…laced reliance on the following decisions on the said issue which are decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and several High Courts of the Country:- (i) Trustees of Nizam Supplementary Family trust vs CIT 242 ITR 381 (Supreme Court); (ii) CIT vs Ram Chettiar 55 ITR 630 (SC); (iii) CIT vs Krishna Kutty Menon 181 ITR 237 (Kerala HC); (iv) Indian Tube Co. Ltd vs ITO 272 ITR 439 (Calcutta HC); (v) CIT vs K.M.Pachayappan 304 ITR 264 {Madras HC); (vi) CIT vs Abad Fisheries 246 CTR 513 (Kerala HC); (vii) CIT vs Qatalys Software Software Technologies 308 ITR 249 (Madras HC); (viii) CIT vs TCP Ltd 323 ITR 346 (Madras HC)…

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Coal India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of assessee is allowed

ITA 638/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 148

…held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in A.S.S.P & Co., supra and the Hon’ble Calcutta High court decision in Indian Tube Co. Ltd. supra wherein the Hon’ble High courts have followed the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Raman Chettiar (1965) 55 ITR 630 (SC), which we will discuss infra. 8. Thus, we note that section 148 of the Act does not authorize the AO to issue fresh notice when proceedings on a previous notice u/s. 148 of the Act are still pending and have not been finally disposed of. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Commercial Art Press Vs. CIT (1978) 115 ITR…

Saravjit Bhatia, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6695/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvajit Bhatia Income Tax Officer A-362, Dabua Colony, Pali Vs Ward – 11 (3) Road, Faridabad Faridabad Pan No.Akmpb4292K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 143Section 68

…furnish the source of deposit since it is directly relatable to his shares transaction activity. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Raman Chettiar reported in 55 ITR 630 and various other decisions the Assessing Officer held that the assessee cannot avail himself of the advantage given u/s 139 (5) for filing a revised return. He accordingly held that the loss claimed on sale of shares is not allowable. He, therefore, rejected the loss on sale of shares claimed by the assessee in the revised return and determined t…

CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar (55 ITR 630) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax